The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-27
MEMPHIS DAILY APpEAL-sUNDAY, FEBRUARY 81 1887.

is really very curious. Greene, q
contemporary Of Shakespeare, in q
we'll known passage seems to have
accused him OF plagiarism, and there
are verses, and sometimes a success
sion of verses, by Greene himself,
by Peale, and especially by Marlowe,
which are comparable so far as ex-
ternsls go with Shakespeare himself.
Nor is this at all wondered at in
men so nearly contemporary with
Shakespeare. No one comes so near
to the versifcation OF Shakespeare
as Sptnser and Marlowe. Some OF
the verses OF Marlowe have the same
trick OF ringing in the ear as
Shakespeare's. There is, for in
stance, the famous description of
helen. or, rather, exclamation OF
Faust when he first sees Helen:
Was this the face that launched a thou; and
And buried the tOploss towers Of IlianG
A phrase which, if | am not mistaken,
fingered even in the ear of Shakes
peare. But the most Characteristic
verses OF Shakespeare himself do not
SO much liHger in the ear as to i'm
bed themselves in the very substance
of the mind, and culver years after
in the memory like arrows that have
Just struck and still feel the potent
impulse of the bow. No whole scene
of Shakespeare, even in his prentice
days, could be mistaken for the work
of anv other man for give him room
enough, and he is sure to betray
himself by some quality which is
either his alone or his in such meas
ure as none ever shared but he. |
am reminded of remark of Prof.
Mason which struck me, that one
day, when tired with overwork, he
took up copy of Dante, and after
reading it for half an hour he shut
the book and found himself saying to
himself: "Well, this is literature. Z"
And | think that this may be applied
to the mature work of Shakespeare,
and in a great measure eveu to the
work of the young Shakespeare.
Take the whole scene together, and
there are sure to be passages in it
of which we cannot say that they are
really literature in that high mean
ing OF the word.
SHAKESPEARE AS A REMoDELER.
1t is usual to divide the works of
Shakespeare by periods, but it is not
easy to do this with even an APP
proach to precision unless we take
the higher qualities OF structure as
a guide. AS he matured his plays
became more and more organisms
and less and less suppositions of
juxtapositions of scenes strung to-
gether on the thread of the plot.
In assigning periods too positively,
| fancy we are apt to be misled a
little by the imperfect analogy of the
sister art of painting and by those
who are called the great masters.
But manual dexterity is a thing of
far harder and slower acquisition
than the art of melodious versifca-
ton. The fancy of young poets is
only too apt to be superabundant.
1t is the Imagination which ripens
with the judgment and asserts itself
as the shaping faculty in a deeper
sense than belongs to it as a mere
maker Of pictures when the eyes are
shut. Young poets, especially If
they are great poets, learn the art OF
versifcation early, and their poetical
vocabulary increases by exercise,
and they can pick out and assimilate
what is to their purpose with aston
ishing rapidity. The lyrical poetry
of Dante was, at least in part,
written before he was %, and in some
respects it is as perfect as anything
in his maturer works. Keats died
even younger than that, and left be-
hind him poems that astonish us as
much by their purity of style and
their Attic grace Of form as they take
us captive by their music. | think
it is very interesting to fad Shake
speare improving on a phrase of his
own. 1t is something that no one
else could do. This he does in some
of his sonnets. The thing in which
we would naturally expect Shake
speare to grow more peri, ct by prac-
tice and observation would be in a
knowledge of stage effect and skill in
presenting his subject in the most
telling way. 1t would be on the side
oithe dramatist or playwright rather
than on the side Of the poet that we
should look for development. To
him, as to Moliere, his perfect
knowledge of stage business gives an
enormous advantage. If he took
play in hand to remodel it for his
companyit would be the experience
OF the actor more than the genius OF
the poet that would be called into
play. His work would lie in the direc
ton probably of curtailment oitener
than of Enlargement; and, though it
is probable that in the immature
plays attributed to him in the edi-
ton OF 1923, yet it is haid to believe
that he can be called their author in
anything like the same sense as we
are sure that he is the anthor of
those works in which no other hand
has ever been capable Of the same
mastery. 1t must be remembered
that we come TO the reading OF all
the plays attributed to Shakespeare
with the preconception that they are
his. If we come to play, thinking
it is his, it is astonishing how many
things we excuse, how many things
we slur over, and so on for va ious
reasons not entirely satisfa tory, |
think, if strictly cross examined.
The German poet and critic, Goel he,
believed in the Shakspearean author
ship of all suppositious plays, and in
regard to one Of them at least, The
Yorkshire Trdg dy, drew his argu
ments from the diction. Now, so far
as mere words go, the dramatists of
Shakespeare time all drew from the
same common font of vocabularies,
The movement of their verse so far
as it was mechanical would naturally
have many points of resemblance.
One of the tests is that of the
double end;ng-that is, where there
is superhuOus syllable at the end Of
| Al n ryaroA Sha oopaara triad ~ nnW